Susan Reimer, The Bell Tolls for Thee

On Wednesday, Sept. 3rd, I wrote an article titled, The Character Assassination of Susan Palin and John McCain. It was about an article that Susan Reimer published in the Baltimore Sun with malevolent intent towards Sarah Palin. The main stream media, left wing blogs, and any publication associated with the left, has attacked Sarah Palin with a primal and unimaginable barbarity that would rival Beelzebub’s imagination–this is the bevy to which Susan Reimer has hitched her wagon. Granted, Reimer’s article was less rancid than most, but nonetheless, it was still filled with hate and lies. Of the limitless repugnant articles to choose from, I chose Reimer’s because of the author’s sophomoric ignorance.

Susan Reimer, the politically prescient, and generally incoherent garden columnist for the Baltimore Sun, an established member of the Yellow Press fraternity, decided to join the journalistic dog pile on Sarah Palin. And by doing so became, and justifiably so, associated with the most depraved excuse for media, and has enjoyed the very aggressive backlash that the main stream media and left media are starting to endure as a result of their blatant bias towards Democrats, and the viciousness of their rhetoric in doing so. Susan Reimer wrote a follow-up article with her concerns and fears of the magnitude of the attacks directed towards her because of her article. As in the poem For Whom the Bell Tolls, by John Donne, and his Meditation XVII, by associating herself with the media of the left, she should truly understand the meaning of, …caused it to toll for me.

Yet does she? Within two days of the publication of her article, “A Woman–But Why This Woman?”, she had the following assessment of her situation in her follow-up article:

More than 8,200 comments were posted to the column on The Baltimore Sun‘s Web site. I received more than 700 personal e-mails and about 50 phone calls.

And more than 316,000 people viewed the column on The Baltimore Sun Web site. That number – more than 100 times the attention I normally receive – actually frightened me.

Susan Reimer is scared. She is scared because while mixing her melding pot of fluff stew, with articles titled : Average Age of Gardeners, Your Vision of Retirement, Word War: Marital Becomes Martial, then after adding a dash of political nitroglycerin to the pot, she still remains dumbfounded by the explosion.

In liberal fashion, she claims that she was merely misunderstood. Her statement about the conservatives’ method of trying to reach the evangelicals with Sarah Palin, as stated in her article, “You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.” This has a pretty straightforward meaning and intention. But Susan Reimer had an explanation for this one particular statement. It must be a vast right wing conspiracy, possibly dating back to when Sarah Palin first learned that the child she carried had Downs Syndrome. Or at least that is who her deity, Hillary Clinton, would have blamed it on.

Many criticized me for writing that by choosing Palin, who gave birth this spring to a child she knew to have Down syndrome, the Republican Party was exploiting her decision to keep her child – that the party was trading on her story.

It is the motives of Republican strategists of which I was, and am, suspicious. It was as if they were saying, “Sarah Palin is not only pro-life. She is living that message,” making the personal political.

What does this mean? Is this the ramblings of someone on the brink of insanity? Is there something at work here other than stupidity? “Sarah Palin is not only pro-life. She is living that message, making the person political.” Please, someone, relate this to Reimer’s “You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child.” I can’t. It is not as if they were saying it, they were. Sarah Palin does not just talk the talk, she walks it also. That is precisely why she was chosen. Is Reimer that blinded by hate to see this?

In her follow-up article, and out of the blue, Reimer related that, “And if you want to count rich and complex life stories when considering a candidate, Obama and Palin are just about equals.” This confirms the quintessence of Reimer’s first article about Sarah Palin: It is replete with lies and unsubstantiated conjecture. Even the most ardent leftist, when speaking in an unguarded moment of truth, will admit there is absolutely no correlation between the life of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin–personal, professional, or political. That is the foundation for their hate.

Reimer closed out with:

Generally, the comments were not made behind the veil of anonymity the Internet can provide. The writers signed their names. And they revealed what I think has become the bare-knuckles nature of our national conversation.

So much pent-up anger, so much barely concealed hate was released in those e-mails and those postings. I wonder where next they will find a vent.

Does Reimer realize that she has described the media of the left almost exclusively? Can she be that intellectually unsound and myopic?

Reimer never once defended her remarks in her article. If you are going to write political opinion pieces, or discuss your negative view of a candidate, you had better have the capacity to defend your position. Reimer, in her first article, and the follow-up article, never defended her position. She could only default to the you just misunderstood me ploy. Reimer seems to be stunned that if you write an article congested with lies, hate, and a comically absurd display of ignorance as a tool to malign the character of someone, that she would receive this type of response. If the old adage of to know someone you need to walk a mile in their shoes is true, then Susan Reimer just walked a mile in conservatives’ shoes in regard to the media, yet she continues to be oblivious of her journey.

Posted to Politics | Comments (3) | Email This Post | Tags: Sarah Palin, Susan Reimer